U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Star Scientific, Inc. is back in the legal news, but this it has nothing to do with Jonnie Williams and the McDonnell trial (Star Scientific, Inc. did not disappear, but instead changed its name to Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals). In August 2016, Judge Anthony Trenga ruled on Plaintiffs’ Motion for an
Multiple recent decisions from the Eastern District show a widening disagreement among the judges regarding “reasonable” hourly rates for attorneys. This disagreement is manifesting itself most notably among the judges of the Alexandria Division as they rule on attorney’s fees petitions that involve lawyers from firms based in both Virginia
There is yet further disagreement among the judges of the Eastern District regarding reasonable attorney hourly rates. As we noted in a previous EDVA Update here, this disagreement is manifesting itself most frequently in the Alexandria Division, as judges there confront (and push back against) the higher hourly rates frequently
As the judges of the Eastern District continue to differ regarding reasonable hourly rates for attorneys, practitioners need to be aware of a potential new trend regarding declarations supporting or opposing petitions for attorney’s fees. Unfortunately, that new trend appears likely to make such petitions more detailed and time-consuming –
The Fourth Circuit recently recognized that higher-education accreditation agencies have a federal common-law duty to employ fair procedures when making accreditation decisions. In reversing the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for its failure to show appropriate judicial deference to the accrediting agency’s denial of re-accreditation, the
At some point in their careers, most Virginia practitioners have argued petitions for appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia and have lost. An appeal to the Virginia high court in a civil case is discretionary. Often, the denial of the appeal is a brief, unsatisfactory one-page order: “Upon review
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit illustrates the need for careful planning at the briefing stage to review the admission of a summary chart at trial. In U.S. v. Katsipis, 598 Fed. Appx. 162 (4th Cir. 2015), an appeal from the U.S. District Court
We have written multiple times on the EDVa Update Blog about the Court’s handling of spoliation claims. Recently we covered the 4th Circuit’s remand of a District Court ruling applying an adverse inference following a failure to preserve certain evidence. We have also written on the workings of amended Fed. R. Civ.
Is the standard for summary judgment evolving, and has the Eastern District kept up with the evolution? In a July 6, 2016 decision in Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments, LLC, (Dkt. No. 15-1055), the Fourth Circuit reversed Judge Lee on all six counts in a fairly standard discrimination case. The
The Trump Administration issued its replacement Immigration Executive Order on March 6, 2017 (Order No. 13,780). This Executive Order arrived three weeks after several federal courts, including the EDVa and the Ninth Circuit, enjoined enforcement of core terms of the earlier Immigration Executive Order (Order No. 13,769). In this Blog